Damn, I didn't know I was an idiot. Guess that's the way idiocy works. When I discovered Substack earlier this year I thought I found pure gold. People with brains doing real thinking, and most importantly, questioning. This idiot is sticking around as long as they'll let me.

Expand full comment

In the Wizard of Oz, the Wizard grants recognition to the Scarecrow, Tin Man and Lion after they demonstrated their virtues. The Scarecrow had the education, but not the diploma. In our society, it’s the opposite. “Experts” get their credentials first without mastery of anything. Then, they wage war against anything or anyone who might expose them. Here’s a test: how many people lecturing us on the climate crisis know anything at all about the climate? How many of the “my mask protects you” crowd had read anything other than the curated information that El Gato writes about? The answer is virtually none. It’s not science, knowledge or expertise. It is Joseph Goebbels.

Expand full comment

After years of reading the poorly thought out and even more poorly written musings from the likes of Eugene Robinson, Charles Blow, and Frank Bruni, Substack has been a breath of fresh air. So many highly intelligent writers (including those commenting under the articles) scouring the facts and poking holes in the official narrative. It has been wonderful to know that I was not the only one who smelled a rat.

When they take down the internet and blame it on Putin (whether he did it or not), then start it up with Truth Ministry propagating lies (Ardern alluded to it this week) that's when the tyranny really gets under way. BTW, Mr. Ed, not Jacinda Ardern, is my favorite talking horse...

God help us all.

Expand full comment

Well, not to be dark, but this dynamic has and could lead to one way box cars on rails to a destination where it snows in August:

"this creates the dangerous situation of someone who not only holds beliefs uncritically but experiences challenge to them as personal attack on self and surrogate family"

If we extend this, beyond the perceived personal/surrogate attack, to include the fate of the world (climate change) or the fate of the species (c19) being attacked, then it can get really scary.

All manner of behavior can be justified by zealots and the rest follows because most of the population is the go-along- to-get-along type. Most folks don't find this as a threat because the don't understand how this insular dynamic forms. So they don't question either and are sitting ducks for propaganda.

Expand full comment

You cannot reason with a demoralized person. The more “elite” the university, the more demoralized it is: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-get-into-harvard-part-2

Expand full comment

1. "Cui bono" is the most important truth detector.

2. Most people really are sheep. This is descriptive, not pejorative.

3. Humans (in the west at least) have evolved *past* where they can handle. People who had to work from dawn to dusk to survive did not have our problems.

Expand full comment

It’s out time that being this type of idiot became trendy, lol. The real cool cats of SubStack. Explore our inner cats.

Expand full comment

Substacks like gato malo's IS the news channel: just learned here that substacks are hated...

Expand full comment

Predictive power should be what draws you to people making claims. In science, good theories tend to improve with age and vice versa. In my area of expertise (exercise and nutrition) you see it all the time and while headway is made, institutions cling to bad ideas for far too long. My mistake was not applying that same methodology to some of my other less considered beliefs.

Team Reality, made up of a broad spectrum politically (though many may have moved rightward in these past couple of years), were largely correct from very early on, simply by competently analyzing the known data. I remember first running into Justin Hart in Spring 2020 and thinking, Mormon Republican, not exactly “my type.” But my stupid preconceptions were steadily eroded by his honesty, good humor and clearly good data. Same with our host, really. Some of what he said politically was jarring at first. But the arguments were sound and made in good faith. What at first created dissonance now just seems correct.

For me, it is the only good thing to come of all this craziness - it showed me a lot about the limitations my own filters were providing. I wish the cost of my red pill wasn’t this complete societal shit show, but there you have it.

Expand full comment

We all probably know at least one person who practically wove a facemask into his skin during 2020. To remove it now is closer to asking for self-surgery than for mere normalcy.

I think the real insidious thing about the identity-tied dogmas of 2020 is that they were manufactured hurriedly, propped up artificially, and adopted without thought of consequence. Reminds me of something else...

Expand full comment

As a teenager growing up in 70s NYC we all fancied ourselves as free thinkers and proudly wore our Question Authority buttons. Fast forward to the present and not one of the people I grew up with have questioned any narrative put forth by the government or the MSM. How does that happen?

Expand full comment

What you call "inhabiting" an idea is what Herbert Kelman called "identification" 60 years ago. The key, though, is this: it's not about the IDEA, it's about WHO is presenting it.

Thus, someone who was terrified of Trump's "hasty vaccine" in Dec 2019 began to scream for mandates as soon as it become "Biden's miracle." The idea didn't change, only its allegiance did, and all those whose identity includes that allegiance changed with it.

I've written about that here, if there's no objection from El Gato to a little self-promotion. https://dystopianliving.substack.com/p/the-psychology-of-compliance

Expand full comment
Sep 29, 2022·edited Sep 29, 2022

I never really heard much about substack until earlier this year when the Clinton Spawn called out the stack for "facilitating science denialist anti vaxx grifters." I had to come check it out after that. Clinton Spawn calling people grifters! The irony.

Thanks Clinton Spawn Superpredator Grifter.

Expand full comment

The old story about the cardinal being offered to see the mountains on the Moon through the newly invented telescope comes to mind regarding academia.

See, the official position of the church was that the Moon was a smooth body, no mountains or other things.

Thus, the cardinal declined, since he didn't need to look at the Moon to know it was smooth.

Replace with -ism or dogma of choice as needed.

I expect "trust but verify" to be called criminal treason any day.

As opposed to fully legal treason of course.

Expand full comment

Just yesterday, I told my brother that we should strive to critique ideas without criticizing the people holding them; but I fear El Gato-San is correct, that for many ideas become part of personality which motivates the “words are violence” nonsense and censorship movements.

Expand full comment

Nietzsche wrote widely about instincts, morals, and a large array of other topics. There's a lot more there than just a voyeuristic abyss and writing God's obituary. Relevant to what we're discussing here, in the beginning of his Beyond Good and Evil, the section is titled "The Prejudices of Philosophers." His critique may be extended to any field of inquiry. In a few sentences, he believes that when creating his theories, the thinker begins with implicit, assumed, often unconscious "truths." Then he erects his dialectic (formal system of thought) to support the ground assumptions, and proclaims the finished structure as "truth." Nietzsche complains that it's precisely these very unchallenged ground assumptions which should be examined. The same rigorous principle of inquiry an testing should apply also to the hard sciences, and indeed, any field of knowledge. He often speaks in terms of man being driven by instincts (including, as mentioned in Gato article, of self-preservation) but also the other "normal" instincts: to reproduce, to gain power, and so on.

In a broader context, he often analyzes the conflicts between what he called master and slave moralty. Often the discussion is couched in terms of nobles vs. peons, or of a new religion as a rebellion or self-defense against the master's. The "inversion of reality" is a common fault. Although religion is usually what he's dissecting, much of his logic can be applied to virtually any dogmatic system of belief, especially those that, like most religions, make truth claims that are either contrary to known reality, or are untestable (e.g. about the "other world.") It should be obvious that many popular current beliefs fall well into the "denial of reality" camp.

It is worth mentioning that Nietzsche was very astute in these observations. He had great insights into human psychology, well before Freud and later more famous investigators.

Expand full comment